As we get closer to an agreement and an election how many MPs will get cold feet. E.g. Tory MPs in London and Scotland will be facing the dole with few routes back. There could be a massive realignment of politics about to happen. It all feels like the post referendum election in Scotland where the losers ended up winning.
I wonder how many ex-MPs actually do face the dole, rather than using their connections to step into a quite acceptable and adequately remunerated alternative "public service" tole.
A summary of where we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
A summary of whew we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
Spoke to one of the most politically disengaged people on the planet about this. The view? People obviously didn't know what they were voting for first time round; but while a good idea in principle, in practice a second referendum would be impossible.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
A summary of whew we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
Spoke to one of the most politically disengaged people on the planet about this. The view? People obviously didn't know what they were voting for first time round; but while a good idea in principle, in practice a second referendum would be impossible.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
Why have other countries been able to hold second referendums on major issues? What would be so particularly humiliating about it for the UK?
A summary of where we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
All the indications are that the country is still quite evenly split on this. The logical thing is to try to respect both sides, and have something that isn't remaining, and isn't leaving with No Deal. To my mind that means leaving the political structures but continuing a close economic relationship. If we leave with a deal, the focus will inevitably move on to the future relationship, and I think we'll end up with one that does respect both sides.
A summary of whew we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
Spoke to one of the most politically disengaged people on the planet about this. The view? People obviously didn't know what they were voting for first time round; but while a good idea in principle, in practice a second referendum would be impossible.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
Why have other countries been able to hold second referendums on major issues? What would be so particularly humiliating about it for the UK?
In this particular case it was the palaver. I think they probably could be held but there is a lot of "how do we get to there from here" around. And getting there would be at least ugly.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
A summary of whew we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
Spoke to one of the most politically disengaged people on the planet about this. The view? People obviously didn't know what they were voting for first time round; but while a good idea in principle, in practice a second referendum would be impossible.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
Why have other countries been able to hold second referendums on major issues? What would be so particularly humiliating about it for the UK?
The country (sic) of the UK is not like other countries, it's exceptional!
Syria is complicated. Any voter can see that hosting the G7 at a Trump resort is obviously corrupt, which is probably why Trump was quickly persuaded to back down.
Syria might be hated inside the Washington bubble but the shifting pattern of alliances is too hard for the unengaged voter to follow. Republican senators can see Trump was wrong but without pressure from their constituents, perhaps they can look the other way.
At least it confirms Tory Leave voters are Little Englanders as all that will be left is little England and probably, eventually only a little part of England.
If you want to put Remain on the ballot paper, it becomes a re-run of the referendum. It you split off some of the Leave options, you must do the same for Remain.
What wrong then with a Leave vs Remain with continued integration as the two options?
Those are the figures for second preference. The combined figures for first and second preferences are in the text. Am I getting this wrong, or do they imply the first preferences are as follows? Remain: 44 Deal: 31 No Deal: 15
In a Deal/Remain referendum that would leave the result very close.
At least it confirms Tory Leave voters are Little Englanders as all that will be left is little England and probably, eventually only a little part of England.
Stick me in the implied 4% between Scotland and NI of Con remain
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
I think it is a fair point that the EU will be unimpressed if there isn't a vote on the deal.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Sounds like you have little respect for the majority of your countrymen (both Scots and Brits). But fair play for your persistence.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
I think it is a fair point that the EU will be unimpressed if there isn't a vote on the deal.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
The thing is there was a vote but no one paid attention to it.
On Saturday Letwin's amendment was passed.
The bill then went through on the nod with Letwin's amendment as part of it - so what is the point of bring the bill back to Parliament when they've already voted for it.
The Government now needs to bring the actual bill to Parliament so it can be debated and voted on.
However that bill is supposedly already a mess with a lot of gotchas that people won't be expecting
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
I think it is a fair point that the EU will be unimpressed if there isn't a vote on the deal.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
The thing is there was a vote but no one paid attention to it.
On Saturday Letwin's amendment was passed.
The bill then went through on the nod with Letwin's amendment as part of it - so what is the point of bring the bill back to Parliament when they've already voted for it.
The Government now needs to bring the actual bill to Parliament so it can be debated and voted on.
However that bill is supposedly already a mess with a lot of gotchas that people won't be expecting
I don't think anyone outside of Bercow's house believed this oral vote was a vote. Certainly the noises from Macron and the EU yesterday were that they expected a vote on the deal, so clearly the speaker hasn't pulled the wool over their eyes.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Exactly. Because that's the other thing: no one ever changes their mind.
If you want to put Remain on the ballot paper, it becomes a re-run of the referendum. It you split off some of the Leave options, you must do the same for Remain.
What wrong then with a Leave vs Remain with continued integration as the two options?
That's always been my issue with the second referendum. IF you decide to hold a confriamtory vote on any WA, that's fine, I understand that.
The problem is clarity around what happens if you vote NO. Does NO mean leaving without a WA, further negotiation or remaining ? The problem is there would be no agreement and you'd have effectively two or three divergent NO campaigns out there.
You could have three or more choices I suppose and if you had four the one polling 26% might win. It's worse than FPTP but not by much. If I were the Government, I'd quite like a third option under the "divide and rule" concept but what that would do to the internal cohesion of the Conservative Party is anyone's guess.
So I'll have a referendum with options to support the WA, leave without a WA or revoking but that would be it - the last of the referenda if you like.
More reflections - Johnson came in effectively looking to do a "Brady" but whereas May found the EU unwilling to move on the backstop at the end of January, the threat of a No Deal crash out (which Johnson himself has used well as a negotiating tactic and as glue to keep his Party together but which I'm convinced he would have avoided at all costs) made the EU more open to compromise especially when the compromises were more in their favour.
Perhaps Johnson thought a WA like Brady would get through and the calculation must have been enough of his own side plus :Labour rebels would offset likely DUP abstention or at worst opposition but Letwin saw another angle - a possibility of an "accidental" No Deal crash out so with Benn by-passed another line needed to be created and that's what he did. I suspect the WA would pass on its own but Letwin didn't trust Johnson (no fool he) so there's an insurance policy to ensure proper scrutiny of the WA.
The problem is now the degree to which the WA will withstand parliamentary scrutiny - I think some who have supported it have done so out of fatigue and at the behest of the Overwithers.
I'm concerned about workers' rights and employment protection and for all his weasel words I think Johnson would remove them or dilute them considerably in a heartbeat so ensuring the working classes who voted for Brexit (so I'm told) aren't shafted by that Brexit should be the primary consideration.
All Johnson’s got to do is pass the WAIB then we leave that’s all parliament has said to him. It would be odd to bring the Saturday motion back before he has complied with parliaments terms. Publish the bills and start the process.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Sounds like you have little respect for the majority of your countrymen (both Scots and Brits). But fair play for your persistence.
I support what the majority of people in my country wants. You want what the majority of people in your country wants to be imposed on the majority of people in my country.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Exactly. Because that's the other thing: no one ever changes their mind.
So you support an Indyref and Brexit ref every year? Cool idea bro!
The not sending a letter thing is honestly the biggest load of guff. I get a feeling there are actually quite a lot of people disappointed that he DID send the letter and thus won’t fulfil their fantasy of him ending up in Wormwood Scrubs...
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Sounds like you have little respect for the majority of your countrymen (both Scots and Brits). But fair play for your persistence.
I support what the majority of people in my country wants. You want what the majority of people in your country wants to be imposed on the majority of people in my country.
That's cool but a majority of your country voted for the majority of their laws to be made by Westminster. So if Brexit passes through parliament then you can thank the large majority of No voters. If Yes had better arguments then you probably would have left.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Exactly. Because that's the other thing: no one ever changes their mind.
Indyref2 becomes legitimate after we've left the EU I think because that's a substantial material change in circumstances. I can't see the material change in circumstances that's occurred since the 2016 EU ref
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Not quite: IIRC a lead by Yes led to the purdah-breaching Vow. But Yes began at only about 23-25%. It was Mr Cameron's refusal of the real devomax option that really boosted it.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Exactly. Because that's the other thing: no one ever changes their mind.
So you support an Indyref and Brexit ref every year? Cool idea bro!
I support elections when there have been material changes or to break an impasse.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
I think it is a fair point that the EU will be unimpressed if there isn't a vote on the deal.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
The thing is there was a vote but no one paid attention to it.
On Saturday Letwin's amendment was passed.
The bill then went through on the nod with Letwin's amendment as part of it - so what is the point of bring the bill back to Parliament when they've already voted for it.
The Government now needs to bring the actual bill to Parliament so it can be debated and voted on.
However that bill is supposedly already a mess with a lot of gotchas that people won't be expecting
I don't think anyone outside of Bercow's house believed this oral vote was a vote. Certainly the noises from Macron and the EU yesterday were that they expected a vote on the deal, so clearly the speaker hasn't pulled the wool over their eyes.
But the official record of the proceedings is Hansard. And rightly or wrongly this was recorded as a vote which passed the motion as amended. The only question really is whether the motion as amended require a further confirmatory vote once the WAIB has been passed or whether it is automatically considered to have been agreed.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
I think it is a fair point that the EU will be unimpressed if there isn't a vote on the deal.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
The thing is there was a vote but no one paid attention to it.
On Saturday Letwin's amendment was passed.
The bill then went through on the nod with Letwin's amendment as part of it - so what is the point of bring the bill back to Parliament when they've already voted for it.
The Government now needs to bring the actual bill to Parliament so it can be debated and voted on.
However that bill is supposedly already a mess with a lot of gotchas that people won't be expecting
I don't think anyone outside of Bercow's house believed this oral vote was a vote. Certainly the noises from Macron and the EU yesterday were that they expected a vote on the deal, so clearly the speaker hasn't pulled the wool over their eyes.
Parliamentary process is Parliamentary process - I suspect it will require Bercow to explain things today in small words but at the moment the bill has been presented to Parliament, amended and passed by Parliament.
Now you could prorogued Parliament have a second queen's speech and start again but unless you do that Parliament made a decision on Saturday and that decision cannot be ignored by the Government.
Mr. Doof, the Commons voted to endorse the result of the referendum.
Exactly, so this discussion of 'is the referendum binding or not' is pointless. The discussion should be over whether the endorsement of the referendum is binding. That is clear, the endorsement is binding until the parliament votes otherwise.
The referendum was nothing other than a poll on a specific question. All that follows is for the Government and Parliament.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Not quite: IIRC a lead by Yes led to the purdah-breaching Vow. But Yes began at only about 23-25%. It was Mr Cameron's refusal of the real devomax option that really boosted it.
And even after all the shouting from Sturgeon it ended up 10% behind. Not exactly on a knife edge.
If you want to put Remain on the ballot paper, it becomes a re-run of the referendum. It you split off some of the Leave options, you must do the same for Remain.
What wrong then with a Leave vs Remain with continued integration as the two options?
That's always been my issue with the second referendum. IF you decide to hold a confriamtory vote on any WA, that's fine, I understand that.
The problem is clarity around what happens if you vote NO. Does NO mean leaving without a WA, further negotiation or remaining ? The problem is there would be no agreement and you'd have effectively two or three divergent NO campaigns out there.
You could have three or more choices I suppose and if you had four the one polling 26% might win. It's worse than FPTP but not by much. If I were the Government, I'd quite like a third option under the "divide and rule" concept but what that would do to the internal cohesion of the Conservative Party is anyone's guess.
So I'll have a referendum with options to support the WA, leave without a WA or revoking but that would be it - the last of the referenda if you like.
More reflections - Johnson came in effectively looking to do a "Brady" but whereas May found the EU unwilling to move on the backstop at the end of January, the threat of a No Deal crash out (which Johnson himself has used well as a negotiating tactic and as glue to keep his Party together but which I'm convinced he would have avoided at all costs) made the EU more open to compromise especially when the compromises were more in their favour.
Perhaps Johnson thought a WA like Brady would get through and the calculation must have been enough of his own side plus :Labour rebels would offset likely DUP abstention or at worst opposition but Letwin saw another angle - a possibility of an "accidental" No Deal crash out so with Benn by-passed another line needed to be created and that's what he did. I suspect the WA would pass on its own but Letwin didn't trust Johnson (no fool he) so there's an insurance policy to ensure proper scrutiny of the WA.
The problem is now the degree to which the WA will withstand parliamentary scrutiny - I think some who have supported it have done so out of fatigue and at the behest of the Overwithers.
I'm concerned about workers' rights and employment protection and for all his weasel words I think Johnson would remove them or dilute them considerably in a heartbeat so ensuring the working classes who voted for Brexit (so I'm told) aren't shafted by that Brexit should be the primary consideration.
I find your last paragraph strange because it seems to assume a conservative government becomes a permanent feature and that labour could not form a government of its own to legislate their own workers rights etc
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Exactly. Because that's the other thing: no one ever changes their mind.
So you support an Indyref and Brexit ref every year? Cool idea bro!
I support elections when there have been material changes or to break an impasse.
But when the impasse is being created by those who are seeking to create the election ?
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Exactly. Because that's the other thing: no one ever changes their mind.
So you support an Indyref and Brexit ref every year? Cool idea bro!
I support elections when there have been material changes or to break an impasse.
Shame the majority of the remain parliament disagrees with you then.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
Good point. It's when you give people the vote that it can all go horribly wrong for your side.
Pretty sure in Indyref1 No lead from the start of the campaign to the finish. It wasn't even close in the end.
Not quite: IIRC a lead by Yes led to the purdah-breaching Vow. But Yes began at only about 23-25%. It was Mr Cameron's refusal of the real devomax option that really boosted it.
And even after all the shouting from Sturgeon it ended up 10% behind. Not exactly on a knife edge.
On the assumption, energetically marketed by the Unionists and promoted by the media, that Yes = out of the EU; No = only way to remain in the EU. Different situation now.
A summary of whew we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
Spoke to one of the most politically disengaged people on the planet about this. The view? People obviously didn't know what they were voting for first time round; but while a good idea in principle, in practice a second referendum would be impossible.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
Why have other countries been able to hold second referendums on major issues? What would be so particularly humiliating about it for the UK?
The UK has already held two referenda on the same issue. Is there a legal minimum time between two referenda on the same issue?
"The French government has demanded a prompt "yes or no" from Britain over Boris Johnson's Brexit deal as European capitals appeared split on Sunday night over an extension and its duration.
Amelie de Montchalin, Emmanuel Macron’s European affairs minister, on Sunday urged MPs to deliver a verdict so that European leaders can gather to discuss whether to grant a delay.
Speaking after MPs voted on Saturday to delay Brexit for a third time, Ms de Montchalin told reporters that “we should stop believing that it’s in everybody’s interests to put everything on hold for six months”.
She added: “We need a yes or no from Britain on the Brexit agreement. Political uncertainty has negative consequences for millions of families and businesses.”
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Sounds like you have little respect for the majority of your countrymen (both Scots and Brits). But fair play for your persistence.
I support what the majority of people in my country wants. You want what the majority of people in your country wants to be imposed on the majority of people in my country.
We seem to be seeing a view that if the polling for indyref is low, we shouldn't have one.
And if the polling is high, we shouldn't have one.
She added: “We need a yes or no from Britain on the Brexit agreement. Political uncertainty has negative consequences for millions of families and businesses.”
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Sounds like you have little respect for the majority of your countrymen (both Scots and Brits). But fair play for your persistence.
I support what the majority of people in my country wants. You want what the majority of people in your country wants to be imposed on the majority of people in my country.
We seem to be seeing a view that if the polling for indyref is low, we shouldn't have one.
And if the polling is high, we shouldn't have one.
Why would you want one anyway? Clearly in the current age people won't accept the result, the people will march on the streets and millionaires will fund court cases to block it. Eventually there will be a 3rd indyref where the vote is overturned. I presume Scottish Nats will be cool with that though...
The not sending a letter thing is honestly the biggest load of guff. I get a feeling there are actually quite a lot of people disappointed that he DID send the letter
The people who should be disappointed are the ones who believed him when he said he wouldn't
A summary of whew we are with Brexit … simplified and honest version
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
Spoke to one of the most politically disengaged people on the planet about this. The view? People obviously didn't know what they were voting for first time round; but while a good idea in principle, in practice a second referendum would be impossible.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
I voted remain as I 'didn't know what the leave thing would look like' - I'm pretty sure that's true of a lot of people - the idea other people voted leave but didn't know what they were doing is an idea that has bubbled up because a lot of people didn't like the result - nobody was saying that the day after the vote - you know when Corbyn was demanding Cameron keep his promise to send the A50 notice the next day?
Cameron promised during the referendum he would issue the A50 notice the following day, nobody in the commentariat claimed that would be illegal or even thought it would be. So those people that voted leave did so because they wanted to leave, and unlike me they were clearly content for the form of leaving to be settled by the politicians - failure to agree BRINO was a monumental error by various groups in parliament but the only referendum that has any legitimacy would be deal vs leave with no deal. I don't vote in the UK any more but would now campaign for Boris' deal over remaining.
Mr. Stopper, England gave the Aussies a damned good thrashing in the rugby. Wales edged out France due to a daft Frenchman elbowing a Welsh chap in the head and getting sent off.
The All Blacks crushed Ireland and, alas, the Springboks beat Japan.
Thankfully I suspect we'll leave the EU and keep the Union. Quite likely judging by indy polls north of the border anyway
The statistical tie polling you mean? I'll take a wild guess that your confidence doesn't stretch to wanting the people you vote for in England allowing people in Scotland a vote to test the matter.
Just remind me how many polls Yes has lead in? Can't be many, not to mention the fact that parliament has no interest in granting the loser another vote...
I hope you're not one of those Leavers who continually whines on about democracy.
Sounds like you have little respect for the majority of your countrymen (both Scots and Brits). But fair play for your persistence.
I support what the majority of people in my country wants. You want what the majority of people in your country wants to be imposed on the majority of people in my country.
We seem to be seeing a view that if the polling for indyref is low, we shouldn't have one.
And if the polling is high, we shouldn't have one.
Aye, these lads are very keen on having their cake and eating it, the greedy sods.
The irony is that it's only the likes of Brom getting their Brexity way that has made this an issue. If the there hadn't been an EU referendum or Remain had won, indy support would be trundling along at 35%, and there may even have been (gasp) an outside chance of Ruth for FM.
Mr. Stopper, England gave the Aussies a damned good thrashing in the rugby. Wales edged out France due to a daft Frenchman elbowing a Welsh chap in the head and getting sent off.
The All Blacks crushed Ireland and, alas, the Springboks beat Japan.
I'm concerned about workers' rights and employment protection and for all his weasel words I think Johnson would remove them or dilute them considerably in a heartbeat so ensuring the working classes who voted for Brexit (so I'm told) aren't shafted by that Brexit should be the primary consideration.
I find your last paragraph strange because it seems to assume a conservative government becomes a permanent feature and that labour could not form a government of its own to legislate their own workers rights etc
What would be better if there was a concensus on workers' rights, maternity and paternity leave and adequate protection for part time workers across the parties.
What would also be better would be a strong non-political Union movement to help workers facing exploitation but we don't have one of those either and I wouldn't leave all this to Corbyn and the Marxists.
The fact is I don't trust the current Conservative Party leadership to not, in the name of de-regulation, leave workers open to exploitation. May herself she would guarantee workers' rights but she said directly she could only make that guarantee while she was leader and I'm not convinced those in positions of authority in the Government now share that view.
We need some guarantees of rights and protections for those who can't easily defend themselves. May would have provided that - I don't believe Johnson will. There's a line somewhere about protecting the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate - that's a fundamental for me and why I will never be a Conservative.
The EU don't feel any need to have a further negotiation wth Boris. Not that he is asking for one.
The EU can look at the polls and see that there is no realistic prospect of a Corbyn Govt. to ask them to negotiate for a new deal. Not that there is any reason for them to engage anyway with a guy whose party are going to reject what he comes up with anyway.
The EU don't want No Deal.
The EU don't want Brexit dragging on into the tenure of the new Commission.
They don't want Brexit further dragging down economies teetering on recession.
An EU extension for an election still requires the House to vote for that election. An election where many feel they would lose their seats (a self-fulfilling prophecy, the longer they dick around preventing Brexit). So there is no guarantee that a modest exension gets what they want.
They might agree an extension to 31st December, subject to an election having been called by 31st October. If no election called, no extension.
It may also be that even if the election is held, the Tories get a significant majority - one that doesn't entirely rule out No Deal. Again, not what is wanted.
Revocation of Article 50 is a possible outcome. But th EU can see that is not the end of Brexit in the UK. Far from it. They can't pan when one of their largest members WILL be agitating to leave again in months or years. Revocation does them no good - we are still going to be a short-term semi-detatched unreliable member.
Ideal world, the EU gets its deal through by 31st October. The UK PM wants that too. They have it in their hands to make it so. It just needs one country to say "enough". Better still, a group of them, that can't then be leant on. This is the conversation going on in Brussels. Right now.
An expert in energy this morning stated that the UK is one of the World's best green energy countries and has a really good record on climate change and environmental policies
He went on to say the UK is responsible for 1% of emissions leaving the ROW at 99%
So these climate change extremist need to direct their attention elsewhere
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
By "large margins"? Ken Clarke's Customs Union failed by 3 votes.
I'm concerned about workers' rights and employment protection and for all his weasel words I think Johnson would remove them or dilute them considerably in a heartbeat so ensuring the working classes who voted for Brexit (so I'm told) aren't shafted by that Brexit should be the primary consideration.
I find your last paragraph strange because it seems to assume a conservative government becomes a permanent feature and that labour could not form a government of its own to legislate their own workers rights etc
What would be better if there was a concensus on workers' rights, maternity and paternity leave and adequate protection for part time workers across the parties.
What would also be better would be a strong non-political Union movement to help workers facing exploitation but we don't have one of those either and I wouldn't leave all this to Corbyn and the Marxists.
The fact is I don't trust the current Conservative Party leadership to not, in the name of de-regulation, leave workers open to exploitation. May herself she would guarantee workers' rights but she said directly she could only make that guarantee while she was leader and I'm not convinced those in positions of authority in the Government now share that view.
We need some guarantees of rights and protections for those who can't easily defend themselves. May would have provided that - I don't believe Johnson will. There's a line somewhere about protecting the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate - that's a fundamental for me and why I will never be a Conservative.
And yet we have some of the best workers rights in the EU over and above the EU statutues
An expert in energy this morning stated that the UK is one of the World's best green energy countries and has a really good record on climate change and environmental policies
He went on to say the UK is responsible for 1% of emissions leaving the ROW at 99%
We are, however, under 0.9% of the world's population, so that's not a great achievement.
I do think this is an unarguable case. Better Together went big on the staying in the EU thing and this is clearly a massive material change for Scotland which voted by a very large margin to stay in the EU at the 2016 referendum.
I think Independence would be the very clear favourite if there were a new Indy referendum.
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
I think it is a fair point that the EU will be unimpressed if there isn't a vote on the deal.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
Bercow will disallow because of spite today..he was genuinely furious when the Tories walked out and he believes his retribution is now required.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
By "large margins"? Ken Clarke's Customs Union failed by 3 votes.
A vote on a customs union is a waste of time as it hasn't been negotiated and the EU are not interested. It is just a wrecking amendment.
The options are:
Deal No Deal Revoke 2nd Ref Election
Any tampering with the negotiated WA is just a waste of time for both sides.
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
Not possible. No one can bind another majority government
If these MPs are so terrified of the horrors of No Deal bing visited upon the people of the UK, then Vote. For. The. Deal. We. Have.
But then - we would Brexit.
Yep Lady Nugee, that's where we are. It's where we have been since the Remainers had a toddler tantrum in aisle three when the voters told them in the referendum that no, you can't have chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
It's a very weird, childish tick common among PB Tories to refer to a woman by her husband's name, when she doesn't use it professionally. A daily exercise in time-travel to the 1950s.
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
By "large margins"? Ken Clarke's Customs Union failed by 3 votes.
A vote on a customs union is a waste of time as it hasn't been negotiated and the EU are not interested. It is just a wrecking amendment.
The options are:
Deal No Deal Revoke 2nd Ref Election
Any tampering with the negotiated WA is just a waste of time for both sides.
Except to offer the EU further unilateral concessions. They'd be happy to re-open the WA for that. This is, I believe, Labour Party policy, but who can tell?
So why try and amend the bill, if you’re going to vote against it anyway?
Um, maybe I'm just being irritable (early morning seminar two hours' drive away coming up) but this is Politics 101. If you don't like a proposal, first try to make it less bad. That doesn't mean you support it. Are you proposing a new doctrine, that unless you support something, you are not allowed to proposed amendments to it?
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
It is remarkable how, over and over, hardline Leavers seek to bludgeon their own version of Brexit through the House of Commons when a different version would sail through. It’s almost as if they don’t really want to leave the EU at all.
Was that not disproved with the indicative votes?
No. Plenty of the indicative votes would have had huge majorities had the hardliners not been implacably opposed to them.
Such as?
Kenneth Clarke's customs union and Nick Boles's common market 2.0 proposals.
They failed by large margins.
They might have passed if a second referendum had been attached and the Government promoted it but why would they?
By "large margins"? Ken Clarke's Customs Union failed by 3 votes.
A vote on a customs union is a waste of time as it hasn't been negotiated and the EU are not interested. It is just a wrecking amendment.
The options are:
Deal No Deal Revoke 2nd Ref Election
Any tampering with the negotiated WA is just a waste of time for both sides.
the options don't include 2nd ref or election - they are simply delaying mechanisms for the others. Parliament has the choice of leave with deal, leave with no deal, revoke A50 - hopefully a number of EU countries will make this clear today and tomorrow - with Merkel being locked in a cupboard so she can't keep claiming the EU needs to give the UK more time - they don't - it's damaging the EU to have this open sore - as EU countries we want and need to move on - deal, no deal or revoke - pick one!
Comments
A referendum was held. Leave won.
A second one would be logical if it were between a deal and no-deal. Putting Remain back among the options makes it a re-run of the original, not a 'peoples vote'. People voted in the first one.
The LD's only agree with referendum results when it gives the result they want.
Everything else is spin and sore losers wanting to delay things as long as possible.
There are 53 Republicans.
...is the other side of the "the people have spoken" coin.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1186176541908062208?s=20
Think if Bercow doesn't allow a vote on the deal then it's a good thing for the government as it further suggests they have the number. Just can't see Macron and Merkel allowing for an extension without a vote on a deal, after all it's just Bercow rather than Boris wasting the EU's time and they'll likely give him short shrift.
Syria might be hated inside the Washington bubble but the shifting pattern of alliances is too hard for the unengaged voter to follow. Republican senators can see Trump was wrong but without pressure from their constituents, perhaps they can look the other way.
Politically disengaged people generally don't vote.
Accusing your opponents of not understanding the issues is common and can apply to every single GE we've ever had.
What wrong then with a Leave vs Remain with continued integration as the two options?
Remain: 44
Deal: 31
No Deal: 15
In a Deal/Remain referendum that would leave the result very close.
They can tailor an extension offer on the outcome of a vote on the current deal. Having invested in making the deal I suspect they will be scratching heads at our inability to put it to a straight vote.
Talk of an extension to end of February, if that is what was done, does rather rule out a second referendum as there isn't enough time.
That leaves No Deal, Deal by 31st Oct (or after a short technical extension to clear up legislation) or revoke as the options available.
What are the chances of another renegotiation? As each deal is rejected the chances of finding the goodwill to return to the negotiating table are reduced. If there is an election unless it gives a thumping majority to one side another renegotiation is less likely because of the rejection of the last two agreements.
On Saturday Letwin's amendment was passed.
The bill then went through on the nod with Letwin's amendment as part of it - so what is the point of bring the bill back to Parliament when they've already voted for it.
The Government now needs to bring the actual bill to Parliament so it can be debated and voted on.
However that bill is supposedly already a mess with a lot of gotchas that people won't be expecting
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186197513717587969
The problem is clarity around what happens if you vote NO. Does NO mean leaving without a WA, further negotiation or remaining ? The problem is there would be no agreement and you'd have effectively two or three divergent NO campaigns out there.
You could have three or more choices I suppose and if you had four the one polling 26% might win. It's worse than FPTP but not by much. If I were the Government, I'd quite like a third option under the "divide and rule" concept but what that would do to the internal cohesion of the Conservative Party is anyone's guess.
So I'll have a referendum with options to support the WA, leave without a WA or revoking but that would be it - the last of the referenda if you like.
More reflections - Johnson came in effectively looking to do a "Brady" but whereas May found the EU unwilling to move on the backstop at the end of January, the threat of a No Deal crash out (which Johnson himself has used well as a negotiating tactic and as glue to keep his Party together but which I'm convinced he would have avoided at all costs) made the EU more open to compromise especially when the compromises were more in their favour.
Perhaps Johnson thought a WA like Brady would get through and the calculation must have been enough of his own side plus :Labour rebels would offset likely DUP abstention or at worst opposition but Letwin saw another angle - a possibility of an "accidental" No Deal crash out so with Benn by-passed another line needed to be created and that's what he did. I suspect the WA would pass on its own but Letwin didn't trust Johnson (no fool he) so there's an insurance policy to ensure proper scrutiny of the WA.
The problem is now the degree to which the WA will withstand parliamentary scrutiny - I think some who have supported it have done so out of fatigue and at the behest of the Overwithers.
I'm concerned about workers' rights and employment protection and for all his weasel words I think Johnson would remove them or dilute them considerably in a heartbeat so ensuring the working classes who voted for Brexit (so I'm told) aren't shafted by that Brexit should be the primary consideration.
https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/1186190766626017280
Now you could prorogued Parliament have a second queen's speech and start again but unless you do that Parliament made a decision on Saturday and that decision cannot be ignored by the Government.
The referendum was nothing other than a poll on a specific question. All that follows is for the Government and Parliament.
Is there a legal minimum time between two referenda on the same issue?
"The French government has demanded a prompt "yes or no" from Britain over Boris Johnson's Brexit deal as European capitals appeared split on Sunday night over an extension and its duration.
Amelie de Montchalin, Emmanuel Macron’s European affairs minister, on Sunday urged MPs to deliver a verdict so that European leaders can gather to discuss whether to grant a delay.
Speaking after MPs voted on Saturday to delay Brexit for a third time, Ms de Montchalin told reporters that “we should stop believing that it’s in everybody’s interests to put everything on hold for six months”.
She added: “We need a yes or no from Britain on the Brexit agreement. Political uncertainty has negative consequences for millions of families and businesses.”
Clearly unimpressed by parliament
And if the polling is high, we shouldn't have one.
Taking people for fools his entire life
Cameron promised during the referendum he would issue the A50 notice the following day, nobody in the commentariat claimed that would be illegal or even thought it would be. So those people that voted leave did so because they wanted to leave, and unlike me they were clearly content for the form of leaving to be settled by the politicians - failure to agree BRINO was a monumental error by various groups in parliament but the only referendum that has any legitimacy would be deal vs leave with no deal. I don't vote in the UK any more but would now campaign for Boris' deal over remaining.
A momentous week coming up.
Or perhaps not.
The All Blacks crushed Ireland and, alas, the Springboks beat Japan.
The irony is that it's only the likes of Brom getting their Brexity way that has made this an issue. If the there hadn't been an EU referendum or Remain had won, indy support would be trundling along at 35%, and there may even have been (gasp) an outside chance of Ruth for FM.
Therefore maybe this is their agenda
Vote against a customs union
Vote against a referendum
Vote against the deal
The likely result being the deal passes but they can say they stayed true to their principles
And as was discussed on 5 live business this morning NI receive a fantastic deal that a substantial majority want and the DUP retain their purity
Slightly bizarre they campaigned to leave the EU and complain about leaving it.
The final paragraph never reads well - please can authors improve this?
Ta
What would also be better would be a strong non-political Union movement to help workers facing exploitation but we don't have one of those either and I wouldn't leave all this to Corbyn and the Marxists.
The fact is I don't trust the current Conservative Party leadership to not, in the name of de-regulation, leave workers open to exploitation. May herself she would guarantee workers' rights but she said directly she could only make that guarantee while she was leader and I'm not convinced those in positions of authority in the Government now share that view.
We need some guarantees of rights and protections for those who can't easily defend themselves. May would have provided that - I don't believe Johnson will. There's a line somewhere about protecting the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate - that's a fundamental for me and why I will never be a Conservative.
Otoh we have definitive proof that staying in the EU was part of Better Together's campaign.
https://twitter.com/UK_Together/status/506899714923843584?s=20
The EU can look at the polls and see that there is no realistic prospect of a Corbyn Govt. to ask them to negotiate for a new deal. Not that there is any reason for them to engage anyway with a guy whose party are going to reject what he comes up with anyway.
The EU don't want No Deal.
The EU don't want Brexit dragging on into the tenure of the new Commission.
They don't want Brexit further dragging down economies teetering on recession.
An EU extension for an election still requires the House to vote for that election. An election where many feel they would lose their seats (a self-fulfilling prophecy, the longer they dick around preventing Brexit). So there is no guarantee that a modest exension gets what they want.
They might agree an extension to 31st December, subject to an election having been called by 31st October. If no election called, no extension.
It may also be that even if the election is held, the Tories get a significant majority - one that doesn't entirely rule out No Deal. Again, not what is wanted.
Revocation of Article 50 is a possible outcome. But th EU can see that is not the end of Brexit in the UK. Far from it. They can't pan when one of their largest members WILL be agitating to leave again in months or years. Revocation does them no good - we are still going to be a short-term semi-detatched unreliable member.
Ideal world, the EU gets its deal through by 31st October. The UK PM wants that too. They have it in their hands to make it so. It just needs one country to say "enough". Better still, a group of them, that can't then be leant on. This is the conversation going on in Brussels. Right now.
He went on to say the UK is responsible for 1% of emissions leaving the ROW at 99%
So these climate change extremist need to direct their attention elsewhere
Ken Clarke's Customs Union failed by 3 votes.
He does however strangle voles.
Or maybe that was vowels?
I think Independence would be the very clear favourite if there were a new Indy referendum.
The options are:
Deal
No Deal
Revoke
2nd Ref
Election
Any tampering with the negotiated WA is just a waste of time for both sides.
It's Deal or Election.